Michael Polanyi is one the best critics of scientific/logical positivism, a caricature of science and its cultural impact (aka Scientism as ideology). He is well-known for showing that science is not pure objectivism, but a personal knowledge, an invested knowledge. Stereotypes of both science and religion/theology are harmful to all concerned. They are a barrier to true dialogue, progressive thinking and good understanding. We long to recover the full heritage and context of science and not to dumb it down. Polanyi was one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century, both a brilliant scientist and a brilliant philosopher, a polymath.
Scientism is the notion that natural science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or form of human knowledge, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life. It assumes an immanent, Closed World System, which rejects the validity of any transcendent elements: there exists a strong attraction to the idea that we are in an order of nature and do not and cannot transcend it. In scientism, the study and methods of natural science have risen to the level of an ideology, and so have morphed into an oppressive and stifling methodological imperialism. Scientism also indicates the improper usage of science or scientific claims in contexts where science might not properly apply, such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry (e.g. to determine a worldview such as scientific humanism or final purpose of life). The stance of scientism thus may indicate in an overconfident fashion a scientific certainty in realms where this is actually impossible, overreaching its proper limits in a process which can thereby ironically discredit science itself. See my paper at the bottom of this post.
Polanyi’s story of science is about the role of unspecifiable, tacit knowledge in expertise. His elaboration of personal commitment at the core of intellectual inquiry is understood as a craft skill. He demonstrates that scientific competence is transmitted through apprenticeship to authoritative teachers (supervisors). So it is not just about the grant money. In the university, the survival of our traditions of intellectual apprenticeship should not be taken for granted. According to Polanyi, a scientist relies on a lot of knowledge that can’t be rendered explicit, and an inherent feature of this kind of knowledge is that it is “personal.” One has to receive it through a person’s influence and mentorship. He also believed that faith is involved at every level of scientific discovery. I wrote a paper on this a few years ago and was absolutely amazed at his insight.
Scientific inquiry is above all about practice, best understood as a kind of craft. Polanyi writes, “I regard knowing as an active comprehension of things known, an action that requires skill.” Polanyi’s point is that to have science, you must have scientists. Scientists are formed and mentored. They cannot be conjured out of thin air. “To learn by example is to submit to authority. You follow your master because you trust in his manner of doing things even when you cannot analyze and account in detail for its effectiveness.” Through submission to authority, in the context of the lab, one develops certain skills, the exercise of which constitutes a form of inquiry in which the element of personal involvement is ineliminable. This includes trust, which is a moral relationship between teacher and student, that is at the heart of the educational process. Scientific inquiry is a mode of personal knowledge that is socially incubated, beginning with imitation.
Bestselling author Matthew Crawford applies the Polanyi critique of received modernity to modern agency and epistemology in The World Beyond Your Head: on becoming an individual in an age of distraction. See also Jens Zimmermann’s critique of positivism (employing Polanyi) in Hermeneutics: a very short introduction. (pp. 121-23) Read More…
See also posts on Charles Taylor and the Immanent Frame.
ubcgcu 